alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?
2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.
Multi-core and dual core PC's on the desktop are the fasted chip ever available. It is no fad, it is here to stay and evolve to even more cores.
Actually, people have been using dual processor machines for AutoCAD and other graphic apps for many years, my first one was 8 years ago, and I have had a dual proc workstation every since which burned up the single CPU workstations.
I think that Multi-Core in desktops will reach a plateau. In the sense that after 2 or 4 cores, there will not be a need for desktop users. In Gaming, frames per second will be determined by Graphics cards, after all the Multi-Threaded games get released, and we see extra frames in games, I don't think that after getting 100FPS on 1600x1200 w/ 16x AA and 16x AF, we will really need to have these Quad-Core 3GHz CPU's.
I know users also do CAD, 3D Rendering, Photoshop, etc. I know we need performance there (Try Maya on a 2.6GHz P4, hideous site) but those users will not be the mainstream or hardcore gaming community, IMHO. I really think that Dual-Core or Quad-Core should be the stopping point for desktop users, and they should start focusing on getting prices down, perfecting the technologies, and creating fun programs to use these with. We all know it's so fun to stare at Photoshop for 3 hours at a picture, and playing the same game with the same lame story makes us giggle like school girls.
I think the big thing that will need Multi-Core technology is Servers. Servers need all the processing power they can get, especially with databases. Of course, this also means that the Opteron transition to DDR2 with 8-Way boards, using Quad-Core 3GHz Opties in there, 32 3GHz Optys....oh that's a devilish thought. That's my 2 cents.
lol wat happens when a new single solution defeats a dualcore. which is reflected in the videocard world ie.x1900xt vs 2x 7800gt
That is a lot less likely to happen with CPUs in the future, as software becomes more and more optimized for multiple threads running on multiple cores.
There is a reason why Sun Servers and indeed most high end servers and workstations have run multiple Processors for years. Putting more cores on one chip makes more sense though, since it saves on pagaing costs and improves inter-chip communications.
I a few years, I think Single cores will be a thing of the past. This is pretty much inevitable, since the level of complexity that software is reaching demands multiple threads to run concurrently.
I don't think anytime in the next 6 to 8 years single cores will go away...
But like they are happening now, they will form the base for the budget and internet machines, being best for one task at a time.
The mainstream, gaming enthusiasts and high end will demand dual and quad cores.
I think the only way single cores will go away is that the manufacturing tech would do away w/ them because of the relative smaller yield.
Why get rid of a product that will sell if you can still produce it?
We just haven't even realized that software is still mostly single threaded. Companies are making the transition, but don't expect multi thread support to appear until the next version or the one after that.
The only way I can see myself using a quad core is for video rendering.
But really, 2007 quad cores will be for servers, not desktops. I'm not gonna shell out for a quad. It'll probably be insanely expensive and so will the motherboard.
Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros
Probably every game released in 2006 and on will support dual core to some extent.
and I believe quite a bunch more are supported or fixing to get support via patch... so the list is growing, and any popular game in the planning is sure to have dual-core support.
Not to mention ATI's and nVidia's graphic drivers are multi-threaded giving an additional boost to dual core performance.
If you run anti-virus or software firewalls as a service, this is not an impact on speed, since they are multi-threaded and benifit from dual core also...
this is good news to dual core buyers and fluid-like gaming.
As far as commercial apps, they have had threading for many years. WindowsNT 4, WindowsNT 2000, WinXP, AutoCad, Photodraw, Video encoders, etc.
I totally agree with you. Unless you run a computer than does nothing but crunch numbers, encode video, or run a bunch of virtualized OSes all day long (then the more cores the merrier!), there is a steep dropoff in performance gains per additional core once you pass 2 or four cores.
I would not buy a new computer with a single-core CPU, but I'd rather get a fast dual-core than a slower quad-core machine for general usage. You have that second core to help you along when there are lots of threads hogging CPU time, but for the most part, a fast CPU gives you the best performance.
it's not a fad... there are definite performance gains... in multiple cores. The more the merrier just consider this, is a single core 3.2Ghz gonna be faster than a 3.2Ghz dual core? I think that the dual core would be faster 8)
The real question is: would a 3.0GHz dual-core or a 2.4GHz quad-core be faster? I think I can say offhand what will win 90% of the non-synthetic benchmarks.
The real question is: would a 3.0GHz dual-core or a 2.4GHz quad-core be faster? I think I can say offhand what will win 90% of the non-synthetic benchmarks.
Are you talking about Single threaded or multi-threaded apps? and in a single program or overall multi tasking? The answer will differ depending on your answers.
alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?
2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.
so wat do think bout my two cents?
conroe is here to replace the P4 - the 65nm P4's are just a filler and an extremely overclockable one at that.
i had a dual celeron system (2x466) and in xp it felt like a P3 800
dual cpu is alright, quad is going too far i think (but on the other hand I have no use but others might)
quad core is more for servers and high performance workstations - cheaper to make a one socket motherboard supporting 4 cores, and high end servers with 4 sockets can then have 16 cores total etc.
ok guys i think u kinda misinterpreted me. i meanted dual cores as opposed to the current generation of processors. say even the new single core conroes destoryed the x2s and PDs then wat will happen???
just consider this, is a single core 3.2Ghz gonna be faster than a 3.2Ghz dual core? I think that the dual core would be faster 8)